Your thoughts - Surrender my certificate for 90 days?

I'm just trying to understand why someone would think the GC SFRA was *more* of a pain than the DC SFRA. :dunno:

However, while I'm not "whining" the DC SFRA is totally unnecessary, whether it's easy or not. I really would have liked to have flown the old Potomac corridor. Hope I can make it to the Hudson before that gets closed too. :(

The "whining" wasn't necessarily your post...

SFRA or no, the DC area has grown and the number of official helicopters has increased. I doubt GA will ever have unrestricted access there ever again.

Let's hope the Hudson corridor remains open. But if the knee-jerk recation is to eliminate pure VFR and require a squawk and ATC "clearance," that would be ok....
 
Easy -- I can go through the DC SFRA with little trouble. Not the same with the GC SFRA.

I don't have to carry an additional certificate around with me to fly through over the Grand Canyon
I don't have to take an additional "test" to fly over the Grand Canyon.
I don't have to have a squawk code to fly over the Grand Canyon.
I don't have to talk to anyone to fly over the Grand Canyon.
I don't even need a turbo'd airplane to fly over the Grand Canyon.


If I accidentally fly outside one of the corridors in the GC, or my altitude slips to 14,449 because of some turbulence, I don't get phone calls and a possible certificate action.

Oh yeah, the DC SFRA is waaaaaaaaaay simpler. :rolleyes:
 
I don't have to carry an additional certificate around with me to fly through over the Grand Canyon
I don't have to take an additional "test" to fly over the Grand Canyon.
I don't have to have a squawk code to fly over the Grand Canyon.
I don't have to talk to anyone to fly over the Grand Canyon.
I don't even need a turbo'd airplane to fly over the Grand Canyon.


If I accidentally fly outside one of the corridors in the GC, or my altitude slips to 14,449 because of some turbulence, I don't get phone calls and a possible certificate action.

Oh yeah, the DC SFRA is waaaaaaaaaay simpler. :rolleyes:

A competent pilot can't handle those meager requirements?

I needed more paperwork to sign out a tank -- on a US Government facility to use on a US Government range.
 
Oh yeah, the DC SFRA is waaaaaaaaaay simpler. :rolleyes:
Didn't say it was simpler, just less restrictive -- compare getting permission to fly through the GC SFRA with getting permission to fly through the DC SFRA. Most of the time, I don't have to do anything different than normal to go through the DC SFRA -- can't say the same about the GC airspace. And I don't need O2 for the DC area, either.

OBTW, you can't go over the GC SFRA without a transponder, either.
 
Didn't say it was simpler, just less restrictive -- compare getting permission to fly through the GC SFRA with getting permission to fly through the DC SFRA. Most of the time, I don't have to do anything different than normal to go through the DC SFRA -- can't say the same about the GC airspace. And I don't need O2 for the DC area, either.

OBTW, you can't go over the GC SFRA without a transponder, either.

But I don't need a discrete code to go over the GC. Let me know how that works in DC. And no need for oxygen in the cutouts.
 
You aren't required to carry your ADIZ/SFRA course completion with you. If questioned, tell the inspector you took the course. He can look it up as part of his investigation or you can provide the completion certificate later. Note that you must have taken the course before the incident (of course).
 
A competent pilot can't handle those meager requirements?

I needed more paperwork to sign out a tank -- on a US Government facility to use on a US Government range.

I don't need to do any of that for any other airspace, except maybe the squawk code.

None of the individual steps is difficult but the more steps put into a precess, the more likely one step will get fouled up by someone. Phil Boyer (or his wife?) got burned when their flight path crossed someone elses path that wasn't following the rules. I also read someone posting in the thread, other than the OP, got burned and simply plead guilty just to minimize the fallout. Both cases, the pilot did what they were supposed to do. One had to prove themself innocent, the other just took the punishment.

Didn't say it was simpler, just less restrictive -- compare getting permission to fly through the GC SFRA with getting permission to fly through the DC SFRA. Most of the time, I don't have to do anything different than normal to go through the DC SFRA -- can't say the same about the GC airspace. And I don't need O2 for the DC area, either.

OBTW, you can't go over the GC SFRA without a transponder, either.
I never got permission to even cut an edge of the DC SFRA - VFR or IFR. Always got to go around it.

In most Class B airspace, there are shelves you can duck under. The DC SFRA is a big chunk of closed airspace IME.

The punishment meted out for even nicking the airspace is too harsh IMO.
 
None of the individual steps is difficult but the more steps put into a precess, the more likely one step will get fouled up by someone. Phil Boyer (or his wife?) got burned when their flight path crossed someone elses path that wasn't following the rules. I also read someone posting in the thread, other than the OP, got burned and simply plead guilty just to minimize the fallout. Both cases, the pilot did what they were supposed to do. One had to prove themself innocent, the other just took the punishment.

PIC was his wife.
http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2006/060118adiz.html said:
And then Boyer revealed how he and his wife had been victims of the operational problems of the ADIZ.
"Let me go off script here. I've not told this story before publicly," said Boyer. On a Sunday afternoon in the summer of 2003, Boyer and his wife flew their Cessna 172 for a short pleasure flight between Frederick (FDK) and Carroll County Regional Airport (DMW) in Westminster, Maryland. Both airports are well outside the ADIZ.
But upon returning to Frederick, the Boyers were ordered to call ATC, and Lois Boyer, the pilot in command, was accused of violating the ADIZ.
"She went through hell," said Boyer. "And the next day, the FAA was still going to pursue an enforcement action."
Fortunately for the Boyers, their aircraft was equipped with ADS-B, meaning that even though they were squawking VFR, the aircraft could be uniquely identified on the radarscope. They were able to obtain the radar tapes and prove conclusively that they weren't near the ADIZ. Very few aircraft currently have ADS-B, so for most pilots, it's their word against the FAA's.
"The FAA assured us they would take steps to make sure this kind of mistaken identity never happened again," Boyer told the security officials. "It still happens all the time."
But more damaging was the effect the incident had on Lois. "She has flown maybe 10 hours total since then," said Boyer.
 
PIC was his wife.

Thanks for getting the reference!

If Phil Boyer (or a handful of other people with access to the highest levels of government) wasn't involved, they probably would have been tagged with the suspension.
 
The FAA and ATC screw up, but they'll blame the pilots. What happened to Dave and me. But the rest of you will blame us, because the FAA has tapes 'n stuff. Yeah, right.
 
The FAA (as a bureuacracy) needs to make itself look important to the funding sources of government. Busting pilots any way they can helps them reach their goal.
 
The FAA and ATC screw up, but they'll blame the pilots. What happened to Dave and me. But the rest of you will blame us, because the FAA has tapes 'n stuff. Yeah, right.
FAA and ATC may have screwed up. They may or may not have tapes and stuff. But it appears to me that a good chunk of David's defense revolved around trying convince the court that he wasn't PIC, in spite of the fact that he says he was the one dealing with ATC and the FAA for a large portion of the flight and the initial post-flight contacts.(emphasis mine):

HERE IS THE TEXT THAT WAS PROVIDED IN THE ASRS/"NASA" FORM:



I was providing instruction to a commercial pilot applicant (“student’) on this day (Saturday – July 10, 2004 between 10:15AM EDT & 1:15PM EDT). The student was told to prepare for a VFR flight from Martin State Airport (MTN), departing the ADIZ at GOLDA intersection [ENO 271º Radial @ 25.0 DME], landing at Ridgely (RJD) and return, via GOLDA, with airwork to occur during the segment(s) of the flight outside of the ADIZ. Upon arriving at MTN, I was advised by the student that he had obtained a FSS briefing and filed a flight plan for the GOLDA-MTN return flight; no adverse weather was reported during the briefing and no NOTAMS were briefed. We would depart MTN and the ADIZ via GOLDA and using the prescribed procedure[FONT=&quot][1][/FONT] with a 1205 transponder code.

We departed MTN at approximately 10:45AM EDT using runway 33, and made a left downwind departure towards GOLDA, after clearing R-4001A, climbing to 2,000’ MSL. Just prior to departing the MTN Class “D” airspace, the Tower (121.30) asked us to verify that we were squawking 1205. The student checked, as did I, and verified that the 1205 code was displayed and that the unit was being interrogated. This information was relayed to MTN Tower. At that point, Tower directed us to monitor Potomac Approach on 126.75, and we did.

Continuing to proceed direct to GOLDA at 2,000’ MSL, we monitored the 126.75 frequency. Once at GOLDA (and clear of the ADIZ), we departed to the south/southeast where we did airwork from 2,000’ MSL up to 4,500” MSL until in the vicinity of RJD. During this time, we simultaneously monitored 126.75 and 121.50. We landed on runway 30 at RJD and took a break until about 12:15PM EDT.

Continuing our flight, we departed runway 30 at RJD, climbing to 2,500’ MSL and heading towards GOLDA. Frequency 121.50 was monitored on departure. About 5 miles south of GOLDA, I contacted Potomac Approach to advise them that we were inbound to MTN and wanted to get the transponder code for operation in the ADIZ to MTN. I was told that there was no flight plan on file. I told the controller that one had been filed earlier in the day, but he said that he didn’t have it and that we’d have to re-file.[FONT=&quot][2][/FONT] We circled south of GOLDA while I got things straightened out. I called Leesburg FSS on 122.20 and asked them to help. They found the flight plan and advised that it had been filed with Altoona FSS; therefore, it was transmitted to Leesburg FSS and not to Washington Center where it apparently should have gone.[FONT=&quot][3][/FONT] The briefer assisted and obtained the necessary information to file the requisite flight plan. I re-established contact with Potomac Approach on 126.75 and the controller assigned transponder code 4601, which I acknowledged. The 4601 code was selected on the transponder and proper function and operation were noted; the interrogation light was flashing. We proceeded on a direct course from GOLDA to MTN with the necessary deviation to avoid R-4001A but be in a position for a left downwind for runway 15 (as transmitted on ATIS “Q”).

As we came within 10+ miles of MTN, I tried to establish contact with Approach so as to get a frequency change to MTN, but congestion on the frequency continued to be so great that a reply was not received until we were about 4 miles from the airport. We climbed to 2,800’ MSL to avoid MTN’s Class “D” yet stay below the Class “B” airspace. At about this time, the Approach controller responded to my call and asked us where we were. I told him and he saw us but he still did not authorize the frequency change to MTN Tower. We maintained altitude of 2,800’ MSL along a left downwind course for runway 15. At a position where we were about 3 miles north of the airport, Approach authorized the frequency change and we established contact with MTN tower and then descended into the Class “D” airspace. Initially, we received a # 1 landing clearance but we were then told to follow inbound traffic.

Upon landing, at approximately 12:50PM EDT, Tower told us to contact MTN Ground (121.80). Ground advised us that they had a telephone number that needed to be called; we responded that we would contact them by phone after we secured the airplane. Shortly after 1:00PM EDT, I called MTN Tower and they gave me the number of Potomac Approach: (540) 351-6129.

I tried to call Potomac Approach several times, but the line was busy. At about 1:25PM EDT, I established contact with Potomac Approach and spoke with Frank. He told me that our flight had been observed only as a “primary target” (i.e., the transponder as not on or operable and the code was not being received by ATC). I told Frank of the initial MTN inquiry, that we had been in contact with ATC throughout the required portions of our flight and there was no mention of any transponder problems, and that the transponder was functioning normally. Frank advised that a report was going to be filed, ATC tapes and radar plots recorded, and that a review would be conducted by the local Flight Standards District Office (FDSO). Franks asked me for some information such as name, address, telpehone number, date of birth, and pilot certificate number. He told me that I could expect to be contacted by the FSDO within 2-3 weeks.

If a student and I had established that he was PIC and I was a passenger, I certainly wouldn't be handling radio and telephone calls as a CFI.
 
The FAA (as a bureuacracy) needs to make itself look important to the funding sources of government. Busting pilots any way they can helps them reach their goal.

I hear this over and over, I just don't see it. The only time I see the FAA bust someone is when they bring attention to themselves, and I'll bet the vast majority of those instances in GA result in nothing more than a talking to oe remedial training because they were legitimate mistakes. If the FAA was out to bust, there were several occasions that would have had me busted. They spend 99% of their time, effort and budget on 135/121 and infrastructure issues.
 
I hear this over and over, I just don't see it. The only time I see the FAA bust someone is when they bring attention to themselves, and I'll bet the vast majority of those instances in GA result in nothing more than a talking to oe remedial training because they were legitimate mistakes. If the FAA was out to bust, there were several occasions that would have had me busted. They spend 99% of their time, effort and budget on 135/121 and infrastructure issues.

Agreed. We have a local hotshot or two that have been doing aerobatics through cloud layers, in the pattern, or 100' over someone's house for a few years.

Various people have complained, but the local FSDO just doesn't seem to care much.:yawn:

Now that the G20 summit is coming to Pittsburgh, the heat is on to avoid any untoward aviation incidents. So they've been looking for the guy. They have description and N number, but he claims, "It wasn't me flying that day..."

:no:
 
We have a local hotshot or two that have been doing aerobatics through cloud layers, in the pattern, or 100' over someone's house for a few years.

Jeez, you'd think someone flying that way for years would have killed themselves by now. 100'? Really?

We have similar complaints coming in to the FSDO about where we practice also. The FSDO has investigated them a number of times and found them to be without merit. They take these complaints seriously but when they know it's the same squeeky knucklehead who's constantly exaggerating their complaints, they'll usually file it in the round file. Does that mean they don't care about violations? Not in my experience.
 
Jeez, you'd think someone flying that way for years would have killed themselves by now. 100'? Really?

We have similar complaints coming in to the FSDO about where we practice also. The FSDO has investigated them a number of times and found them to be without merit. They take these complaints seriously but when they know it's the same squeeky knucklehead who's constantly exaggerating their complaints, they'll usually file it in the round file. Does that mean they don't care about violations? Not in my experience.

I know, but he's done this directly over hangars, below tree level of various ridges, over the houses of other pilots (e.g. people who know what an airplane looks like below 500' AGL. One is a former card-carrying competitor).

I watched him do steep turns over a Horse show last summer -- low enough the horses were distracted and people were pointing and wondering, "What is that guy doing?"

I was waiting for the stall spin given he was low, slow, and steep. He's either very good or very fortunate.

In addition, it's become a bit more aggressive and frequent lately.

There was another Pitts flier who practiced over my house on nice days -- it was always a fun show, but I never saw him less than 1500' AGL, and he was always over our rather barren, low population area.
 
I know, but he's done this directly over hangars, below tree level of various ridges, over the houses of other pilots (e.g. people who know what an airplane looks like below 500' AGL. One is a former card-carrying competitor).

I watched him do steep turns over a Horse show last summer -- low enough the horses were distracted and people were pointing and wondering, "What is that guy doing?"

I was waiting for the stall spin given he was low, slow, and steep. He's either very good or very fortunate.

In addition, it's become a bit more aggressive and frequent lately.

There was another Pitts flier who practiced over my house on nice days -- it was always a fun show, but I never saw him less than 1500' AGL, and he was always over our rather barren, low population area.

Nothing wrong with practicing with a real hard deck, he shouldn't be doing it over crowds of people or property though.
 
Nothing wrong with practicing with a real hard deck, he shouldn't be doing it over crowds of people or property though.

A distinctive red roof usualy indicates habitation.

Cars in front of hangars should clue you in that people are about.

Yet, the township municipal building was apparently the last straw.
 
A distinctive red roof usualy indicates habitation.

Cars in front of hangars should clue you in that people are about.

Yet, the township municipal building was apparently the last straw.

Did anybody ever confront him directly about this before busting on him?
 
Yes. How dare we.

:skeptical:

If that's his attitude, f- him. If you were in TX you could probably shoot him down, but TX is soooo boring people would probably just stand back and watch hoping for a crash and contemplating life if it would hit their mother in law....
 
Back
Top